32 replies to this topic

[38bfast]

Failure is the part that goes into the spindle.

[davew]

Had this been available 2 years ago, I would have said yes over the bushings. But I am against making more options to our so-called "Spec" class. What we have now works just fine.

[Jim Drago]

Had this been available 2 years ago, I would have said yes over the bushings. But I am against making more options to our so-called "Spec" class. What we have now works just fine.

+1

[Jamz14]

Had this been available 2 years ago, I would have said yes over the bushings. But I am against making more options to our so-called "Spec" class. What we have now works just fine.

Does spec mean only one option for everything? If so, only one aftermarket pressure regulator should be allowed? Only one cage model ETC? Should you be mandated to use a pressure regulator?

 

Spec just means defined. There is no reason(that I can see) that these can't easily be defined in the rules. I guess safety could be a concern but often safety is thrown out as the holy, untouchable reason for doing or not doing things when it is just an excuse for not wanting to come up with an argument for or against. These have been running in various groups for a year now and I haven't heard of any failures. Not allowing them without a really good reason just further separates the two organizations from each other. I guess I could have gone the bushing route and kept compliance for both. But in my estimation the EBJ are a better solution to the problem. And both Dave and Jims comments above tend to support that conclusion. So if that is true, where does the grief lie in approving these?

 

Also, the attitude of we can't go back because the bushings came out first stops any evolution of our cars. Why are we even discussing different shock profiles? The current one came out years ago. I see the word option coming up again to counterpoint this comment but today we have options. I don't have to use the pressure regulator, make head improvements and how about exhaust systems? Exhaust is wide open and a very strong argument could be made that different exhaust give different performances. But nobody is proposing that no more exhaust manufactures be allowed. And we already have precedence for different ball joints. We are allowed stock or the R models for some cars.

 

Does the logic stop at; more options are bad? If so, ok and I have no problem with that as long as that logic is used consistently.

[davew]

Does spec mean only one option for everything? If so, only one aftermarket pressure regulator should be allowed? Only one cage model ETC? Should you be mandated to use a pressure regulator?

 

Spec just means defined. There is no reason(that I can see) that these can't easily be defined in the rules. I guess safety could be a concern but often safety is thrown out as the holy, untouchable reason for doing or not doing things when it is just an excuse for not wanting to come up with an argument for or against. These have been running in various groups for a year now and I haven't heard of any failures. Not allowing them without a really good reason just further separates the two organizations from each other. I guess I could have gone the bushing route and kept compliance for both. But in my estimation the EBJ are a better solution to the problem. And both Dave and Jims comments above tend to support that conclusion. So if that is true, where does the grief lie in approving these?

 

Also, the attitude of we can't go back because the bushings came out first stops any evolution of our cars. Why are we even discussing different shock profiles? The current one came out years ago. I see the word option coming up again to counterpoint this comment but today we have options. I don't have to use the pressure regulator, make head improvements and how about exhaust systems? Exhaust is wide open and a very strong argument could be made that different exhaust give different performances. But nobody is proposing that no more exhaust manufactures be allowed. And we already have precedence for different ball joints. We are allowed stock or the R models for some cars.

 

Does the logic stop at; more options are bad? If so, ok and I have no problem with that as long as that logic is used consistently.

 

You sure do now how to make yourself sound like a raving lunatic. You have your opinion. I have mine. So be it.

[Jamz14]

Dave, I had no intention of sounding confrontational. I wanted to understand your opinion and provide exposition for my opinion so we could discuss it. But as usual, the internet proves to be an extremely bad forum for the discussion of ideas. So I will disappear again and let you guys give opinions and keep my to myself.

[Bench Racer]

Exhaust is wide open and a very strong argument could be made that different exhaust give different performances.

REALY??? Maybe in NASA, but surely not in SCCA. Some rules were added before your time because a few spendy folks were exhausting per track.

[Jamz14]

What I meant Bench was that I can buy a SD, Borla, ETC. Any manufacturer as long as it meets certain dimensions. The point specifically on exhaust was, that different manufactures claim different performances with the exhaust based on what they specifically do and they are not identical. Same as with radiators. Different people do them different within the confines of the rules.

 

The points were lost so let me withdraw all my comments. EBJ are a terrible idea as they came later than the bushings. I don't drive SCCA anyway so it doesn't matter in the least to my program.

[Steve Scheifler]

You sure do now how to make yourself sound like a raving lunatic. You have your opinion. I have mine. So be it.

A lunatic how exactly? He's trying to make a reasonable point and offering reasonable analogies. Did I miss something?

It is constantly frustrating to me that any attempt at debate here is quashed with insults. And debate seems to be defined as not agreeing 100% with a few self-anointed elite. Getting motivated to resurect the alternate site where intelligent people can have intelligent discussions.

[Jim Drago]

What I meant Bench was that I can buy a SD, Borla, ETC. Any manufacturer as long as it meets certain dimensions. The point specifically on exhaust was, that different manufactures claim different performances with the exhaust based on what they specifically do and they are not identical. Same as with radiators. Different people do them different within the confines of the rules.

 

The points were lost so let me withdraw all my comments. EBJ are a terrible idea as they came later than the bushings. I don't drive SCCA anyway so it doesn't matter in the least to my program.

Jamz,

My opinion as a former rules maker... And what my thinking is and would have been.  Maybe this will help, may be it won't

 

We had a situation where we had IMO the best fix, bending the spindles. If we could have written this into the rules we would have. But there is no way we could have ever 'written" that in. SCCA and Mazda would not ever want to advocate intentionally bending and heating a supension part for obvious reasons. Obviously the concern had no merit as many were doing for 10 plus years with no failures that I ever heard about, but I understand the concern.  Some were bending upper control arm.  So right or wrong the bushings were legalized as those following the rules were at a disadvantage. Personally, even now I would still MUCH rather bend the spindles than bushings or ball joints.. but it is non compliant.   

 

On exhausts.. We have a rule.. many options of this rule.. On camber.. we have a rule.. many options within this rule..  

 

The rules process can't really always be as consistent as we would like. As soon as we think we have a good rule set, something else pops up and we try to solve as best we can for as many as we can. Unfortunately they try to be consistent, but each issue is handled as a single issue, really the only way you can handle it. Many 'good rules" have unintended consequences, therefore less is often best.  On camber... There was an issue... the SMAC looked at possible solutions.. came up with what they felt was best solution at the time and put it into the rule.  After the fact, NASA chose to allow something SCCA did not so they could get crossover from PT cars I believe.  SCCA felt/feels that they had given a good option and did/do not see the need to add another option, at least at that time. It is one less thing to worry about, tech or even think about. One less thing to test etc. For me personally.. I am fine with the one option as all need to be the same.  I like the fact that we are achieving camber the same way.. if one is better or worse doesnt matter as we are all the same solution.  I would think inherently that the ball joint would be a better option as you are moving the bottom of the wheel out, rather than the top in?  If true, we would all need to now switch. More money, more aggravation.. not good for the class.  We also break MANY ball joints at Road America and it can and often does send you immediately into the wall at high speeds. I have a set of these balll joints.. they look very nice.  I can tell you I do not use ANY ball joint other than OEM on my car as I have seen many fail.  Will these fail there? I dont know.. I also dont want to be the one to find out? You arent failing the bushing as a safety item.  So I quickly fall back to, lets just leave it alone. 

 

That help? Or drive you crazy

[Jamz14]

Thank you jim. I appreciate your patience with me and the time you take with all of us. It doesn't matter so much to me whether I agree with you or not, it matters more to me that I understand where you are coming from.

[Bench Racer]

Personally, even now I would still MUCH rather bend the spindles than bushings or ball joints.. but it is non compliant.   

As DW would say, splane please. Exactly where does one bend the spindle?

[Jamz14]

As DW would say, splane please. Exactly where does one bend the spindle?

In your workshop.